Michelle Ridgeway was doing great on probation for two full years– passing drug screens, paying toward her costs and fines in one of her cases – until the police came to her shared residence for unrelated reasons, and asked to search her bedroom where they found a glass pipe. Based on the pipe and the fact that she had not made progress paying fines and costs on her second case (even though she had been paying on her first) her probation officer issued a warrant and Ms. Ridgeway was arrested. After the arrest, her PO drug screened her, and Ms. Ridgeway was clean, as she had been for every drug screen to that point.
Nevertheless, the sentencing court revoked her probation and ordered Ms. Ridgeway to serve her entire sentence. Noting that Ms. Ridgeway had paid some court costs on one case, the court found that costs in the second case and restitution remained due. In announcing its order, the court noted that anything less than the maximum would undermine “the seriousness of the offense, the seriousness of being on probation, the seriousness of following the court’s order, and complying with probation.”
The problem that the trial court missed, however, is that she was not actually guilty of criminal conduct, because possession of a glass pipe, alone, is not illegal. The Court of Criminal Appeals found the trial court’s reliance on the officer’s opinion that pipes of that sort are used for “possibly, meth or—or smoking some sort of, uh, drug, at some—of some sort” unconvincing, because the paraphernalia statute requires more. Specifically, the Court reminded that
to establish a violation of this statute, the State must prove three elements: “(1) that the defendant possessed an object; (2) that the object possessed was classifiable as drug paraphernalia; and (3) that the defendant intended to use that object for at least one of the illicit purposes enumerated in the statute (citations omitted).
In this case, there was no evidence, circumstantial, direct, or otherwise, that Ms. Ridgeway intended to use the pipe as the officer described. The Court noted that Ms. Ridgeway did not contest her own possession of the pipe, but mere possession without intent did not violate the statute:
Adopting the State’s argument would effectively read the intent element out of the statute. It would transform mere possession of an object classifiable as drug paraphernalia into per se proof of intent to use it for an illicit purpose.
In fact, the Court noted, there was some evidence – all of her clean drug screens – that Ms. Ridgeway did not intend to use the pipe. Finally, the Court of Criminal Appeals discounted the trial court’s finding that her non-payment of all court costs despite having “gainful employment” was willful, because gainful employment, alone, was not enough. Ms. Ridgeway was paying timely pursuant to a plan, and that was enough.
This is a big win for Ms. Ridgeway, and for Public Defenders Tas Gardner, Kaylee Houston (in the trial court) and Mitchell Raines (on appeal).